One question (well, maybe two questions, since it's a compound) for Kevin:What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, and how can this theory be tested with the scientific method?Now, I wouldn't really expect you to know the answer to that, Kevin. The trouble is, nobody else in the ID movement seems to know, either! "There's a Designer -- but we can't say anything about Him. Or Her, or It, or Them, as the case may be. And we can't say anything about what He did, or why He did it, or what tools He used to do whatever the heck He did, or when He did it. In fact, we can't really say much of anything about the Intelligent Designer, other than the fact that He is both 'Intelligent' and a 'Designer'. We do know that His Designs are wonderfully good -- except, of course, for those of His Designs which appear to be lousy, which only go to show that we can't actually tell whether or not His Designs are good."Now, you may object that ID isn't as gee-I-dunno-vacuous as I've painted it up to be here; you may even want to argue that I've horribly misrepresented ID. Well, maybe I have -- but if I have, indeed, misrepresented ID... how have I misrepresented it?For instance: Does ID say anything about how the Designer did His thing? If it doesn't, then "we can't say anything about how the Designer did it" is an accurate portrayal of ID. And the same goes for the rest of my portrayal of ID.So, once again:What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, and how can this theory be tested with the scientific method?If ID ain't got that, it ain't got nothing whatsoever.

Cubist, I'd say that they do know. And I'd agree with them partway (separating for the moment the messengers). If you take what some of these demonstrated liars say at face value, their claim is that sometimes we can analytically deduce some property of some features of some objects as being 'designed' by some agents. That at least is an objective claim, and one that is testable. And surely it is nothing new, as it's the same logic that bears use to find yaller jacket nests. This is not controversial, and it never has been (except that even at this basal level, they have never never substantiated even the mildest form of this claim that design is detectable).

Even at this first approximation, however, it's troubling to recognize the fact that many of the definitions of these terms and concepts IDists use to communicate this notion are, at the very least, not used in any sort of vernacular sense and in some ways completely opposite to other working prior definitions. They made up a tard-language to obfuscate some of the fuzzy logic and quivering mathematics.

First sleight of hand: least as far as I can peer through the murky pool of thick gloppy* tard that has obscured the mechanics of this logical system, some agents are defined as 'intelligent', which then surreptitiously imports secondary meaning from all sorts of feel-good affirmation self-esteem cultural and metaphysical legacies. One of those in particular is the ontological argument from intelligence and the eternal regress of where did intelligence come from. This, we know, is tard, and has been properly recognized as self delusional wish fulfillment at least since Kant and undoubtedly longer. It is an intractable morass resulting from improperly defined concepts**.

Even if I might be more charitable and grant that ID can legitimately deduce whether or not an object is designed, and while I am being charitable I will grant their definitions of all those terms. Ok, you proved*** something is designed. Now what?

Watch closely.

This means that anything possessing those characters that keyed out to 'design' is also 'designed'. This could be peanut butter sandwiches, or scratches on a rock, or the precise position of the earth in relation to the moon sun galaxy etc, the blagella on a fracterium, the way that blood clots to the way that blood splatters from chicken gut oracles.

Who designed those things?

Jeeeesus.

It can be hard to see where the science stopped and the stupid began. Thank Mithra for folks like Wes and Jeff Shalitt and PZ and Ken Miller and Barbara Forrest and Nick Matzke and ERV and Lenny Flank. They have exposed the greased palm groping underneath the skirts of reason.

What is amazing is that even though it's plain that ID is a non-starter from science, Kevin, your objective is to push for it anyway. Whether or not it is science, it validates your beliefs and by your manichean logic anything that does not affirm your beliefs is attacking your beliefs and as a free citizen with religious freedom you have the right to have your beliefs affirmed in the public square and not not-validated in the public square hence the big stink about academic freedom and religious freedom when really all that it has ever been is the freedom to be as stupid as you can possibly be. That, and follow a prescribed agenda by political and religious figures and be good little brownshirts. Which are you, Kevin? Are you a leader or a follower in this religious Scientific Renewal Revolution?

* Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? Kev did you interview Galapagos Finch for Crossroads Expelled? Do tell.

** Formal logic does not work with propositions forged from jello and peppered with leavings from the Sandman.

*** Proved. That is another huge problem with all of the ID issue. Since IC and the EF are an argument from gaps, and science always leaves the door open to disproof, you and your fellow travelers have managed to squeeze a child's foot into the door. Shame on you.

We already had our first security breech [sic] and are asking YOU now for your support to stand up for EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed. Hosted by Ben Stein, EXPELLED contains a critical message at a critical time. As an underdog in Hollywood right now, we need your support.

Recently Robert Moore, a film critic from The Orlando Sentinel pretending to be a minister, snuck into a private screening, did not sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement, and criticized the film the next day in his article.

Moore compared Stein, who is Jewish, to Holocaust Deniers [as I did on this thread] and charge[d] [Jesus, can these people spell?] that Stein's linking of Darwinism to the Holocaust was "despicable." Stein states, "The only thing I find despicable is when reporters sneak into screenings by pretending to be ministers. This is a new low even for liberal reporters."

Yeah, how dare we film reviewers answer e-mail invitations. Teh idea.

--------------Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

When marketers want to publicize movies they want the public to go see, don't they usually, well, invite critics? When I hear that a movie was not screened it always means they have a dud on their hands and they dont want people to know it. I wonder how many non-disclosure agreements Lucas forced people to sign before watching the original StarWars?

--------------"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

We already had our first security breech [sic] and are asking YOU now for your support to stand up for EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed. Hosted by Ben Stein, EXPELLED contains a critical message at a critical time. As an underdog in Hollywood right now, we need your support.

Recently Robert Moore, a film critic from The Orlando Sentinel pretending to be a minister, snuck into a private screening, did not sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement, and criticized the film the next day in his article.

Moore compared Stein, who is Jewish, to Holocaust Deniers [as I did on this thread] and charge[d] [Jesus, can these people spell?] that Stein's linking of Darwinism to the Holocaust was "despicable." Stein states, "The only thing I find despicable is when reporters sneak into screenings by pretending to be ministers. This is a new low even for liberal reporters."

On this board, there are several card-carrying practicing biologists, including Wesley Elsberry, with whom you have already interacted. It won't hurt to listen to some of what they have to say, rather than claim persecution.

Okay, here’s a question with an unfortunately long lead-up: The way I see it, one reason ID is so controversial is that it argues mind precedes matter in the form of a creative intelligence; whereas classic evolutionary theory says that mind is a product of matter. Intelligence is one of the last things to appear on the scene.

But when confronted with the question of how life began, many evolutionary theorists allow that perhaps Panspermia had something to do with it. This theory is broadly accepted as a scientific possibility even though it also posits that mind came first and matter—at least the highly organized arrangements of matter we call living things—second.

So my question is, why is one theory so controversial and the other not? What if you stripped away all of the religious and political baggage from ID? Would the theory be more acceptible then? And wouldn’t ID and Panspermia become nearly indistinguishable? After all, both argue that perhaps the best possibility for explaining how life began is a higher intelligence that seeded it on earth. We can argue all day about what the nature of that intelligence really is. But that’s beside the main point: Do we need intelligence to explain things like the origin and diversity of life or not? Classical evolution says no, ID and Panspermia say yes. Two different answers to the same question. I fail to see how one answer is scientific and the other not. That being said, I’m sure someone is going to go off about the scientific method and how the IDers aren’t serious scientists, that they’re a bunch of liars, etc. But once again, that’s beside the point. Never mind their methods or their ethics. Is the question the ID community is asking scientific or not?

Albatrossity: How is Panspermia consistent with the evidence? And exactly what evidence are you talking about? As for what the real question is, I'm accepting Mr. Christopher's invitation to ask questions today rather than answering them. As for your question, if you were really serious about finding an answer, a five-minute web search would give you more than enough information.

Oldman: You're dodging the question again. Is the question the IDers are asking scientific or not?

Oldman and Albie are assuming the comparison is between evolution and ID.

You are assuming the comparison is between panspermia and ID.

You are talking about different things.

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

This circus reminds me of what happened when Bobcat Goldthwait's "Shakes the Clown" was released. The COA, ISCA, SECA and all real or carpet clowns they could possibly enlist (yes, including the Shriners) set out to march in protest (in full dress dread complete with rubber noses and size 47 shoes). Seems they didn't much like the movie's sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll themes.

Which of course served to bring mass numbers of regular citizens and all their children right to the very door of the theater showing "Shakes," so they could watch the funny clown protest parade. Then most of 'em went on in to see the movie. Which, in case anyone missed it, is probably the funniest clown movie ever made. Just something about drunk, stoned, off-duty clowns stumbling out of the bar at 2 a.m. and piling into polka-dotted mini cars to drive home... or an impromptu mad rumble in the park, clowns vs. mimes ["Say uncle!"]...

Through it all (including Bad to the Bone clown make-over in a gas station bathroom on the way to the gig after a bizarre one night stand with Florence Henderson), Shakes proves again and again that he's the best clown ever. The movie did quite well at the box office thanks to all the free publicity the clown associations donated to the cause.

For "Expelled" I can't decide whether Stein's a Goldthwait-level marketing genius playing you all for free promo, or if you're on the kickback payroll. Either way it strikes me quite humorous. A whole heck of a lot more predictable (thus mostly ignore-able) than the "Shakes" spectacle, but semi-amusing in places just the same.

"Is it supposed to?I always understood them to be 2 separate things." (Sorry, haven't figured out the quote function yet.)

From reading people like Dawkins, Dennett, Stenger, Darwin, and others, evolutionary theory most definitely includes the origin and diversity of life.

I think you ask a very telling question here: What difference does the origin of life make to current evolutionary theory about the diversity of life? (I'm summarizing.) There are two ways to answer that question. First, if it makes no difference (as you seem to be saying) then what's all the fuss about ID? Second, I think it would make a huge difference. If we look at a cancer cell as nothing but a highly successful Darwinian accident, that assumption will affect how we attempt to combat it. But if we can assume it was designed, we can reverse-engineer the cancer cell and potentially develop much more effective ways of defeating it's internal programming. Not the best example, perhaps, b/c I'm sure someone is going to turn around and say, "How could a good God design cancer?" But that's a philosophical question about the nature of God, not a scientific one.

Oldman: You're dodging the question again. Is the question the IDers are asking scientific or not?

The question might be scientific.

Quote

Do we need intelligence to explain things like the origin and diversity of life or not?

Their methodology is not.

I personally don't believe intelligence is required for self-replicators to arise. There are a number of reasons for this which I'll be happy to go into, from a non-expert perspective. However, you have experts here so ask away.

Could you tell me what scientific methodology IDers are using to determine if intelligence was required for origin of life? I did not realize there was any ID researching going on into the origin of life. Could you please supply details?

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

You know as well as I do that evolutionary theory is supposed to explain the origin AND diversity of life. How about attempting a serious answer?

Yes, I know this as well as you do. And I know that it is false. And so do you.

Quote

The way I see it, one reason ID is so controversial is that it argues mind precedes matter in the form of a creative intelligence; whereas classic evolutionary theory says that mind is a product of matter. Intelligence is one of the last things to appear on the scene.

This is where the science stops. Nowhere does ID argue this. ID, as a legitimate scientific enterprise I have outlined above* does not mention this at all. News Flash: NEITHER DOES CLASSIC EVOLUTIONARY THEORY.

Quote

classic evolutionary theory says that mind is a product of matter

Putting 'classic' in front of it doesn't mean it is any less a steaming pile of bullshit. That is a classic obfuscation technique from creationists and other rhetorical artistes.

You might argue that this is a consequence of the predictions of some people's metaphysical opinions (ie eliminative materialism, and many variants) but they would freely agree with you. And box your ears for reifying definitions.

After all, it's your own fault for erecting some mystical concept that cannot be investigated (like mind). You're just upset because no one is seeing your invisible friend and they are asking where did the little bastard go.

It is typical for small minds to expect a simple answer for everything. 'Intelligently designed is one such answer. So is 'it's all random meaningless chance'. Your homework: find someone on the good guys team who actually says this**.

Panspermia to hitler to stalin to academic freedom. But NEVER THE SCIENCE.

* Note that this means I agree that a form of design detection could be in principle accomplished. But has not. Just hand waving from the agenda-tards.

** good luck.

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

I'm sorry these guys are confused, Carlsonjok, but if you go back to my original question, what I'm asking is, why is panspermia considered scientific and ID is not. I think I made it pretty clear there.

Maybe I'm missing something, but panspermia does not say intelligence came before life. It just posits that life may have started elsewhere first, like Mars, and come here via meteor, or comets, or some other means. You can test these ideas by looking at meteorites or studying the chemistry on other bodies in the solar system.

How do you test ID? No one seems to be able to define it in a way that can be tested.

--------------"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."- Richard P. Feynman

I'm sorry these guys are confused, Carlsonjok, but if you go back to my original question, what I'm asking is, why is panspermia considered scientific and ID is not. I think I made it pretty clear there.

Oh, it is a minor point with fault lying on both sides of the equation. But never mind that. To the extent that panspermia is a legitimate scientific question (and I am not necessarily convinced it is*), it would be so because it makes no untestable appeals to supernatural intervention.

* But what do I know? I am neither a professional scientist nor an atheist. YMMV.

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

oldman said, "Very well. Then do you have any examples of how presuming design helps understand how do defeat such things? Or are we still only at the talking about stage? No lab work as yet? If not, how long will it take?"

I think this is a good question. Unfortunately, I'm not a scientist so I can't wheel out a stack of journal articles or anything like that. But I can say that several scientists we talked to in our film--especially cell biologists--are finding the assumption of design quite useful in their work. And I don't mean useful in terms of creating a grand explanation for life. Merely in their day to day lab work.